lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v12 1/2] pwm: add microchip soft ip corePWM driver
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:03:13PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 10:04:33PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 05:38:26PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 05:49:50PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > Hello Conor,
> > >
> > > Hello Uwe,
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 09:35:12AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static void mchp_core_pwm_enable(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> > > > > + bool enable, u64 period)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm = to_mchp_core_pwm(chip);
> > > > > + u8 channel_enable, reg_offset, shift;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * There are two adjacent 8 bit control regs, the lower reg controls
> > > > > + * 0-7 and the upper reg 8-15. Check if the pwm is in the upper reg
> > > > > + * and if so, offset by the bus width.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + reg_offset = MCHPCOREPWM_EN(pwm->hwpwm >> 3);
> > > > > + shift = pwm->hwpwm & 7;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + channel_enable = readb_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + reg_offset);
> > > > > + channel_enable &= ~(1 << shift);
> > > > > + channel_enable |= (enable << shift);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + writel_relaxed(channel_enable, mchp_core_pwm->base + reg_offset);
> > > > > + mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled &= ~BIT(pwm->hwpwm);
> > > > > + mchp_core_pwm->channel_enabled |= enable << pwm->hwpwm;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Notify the block to update the waveform from the shadow registers.
> > > > > + * The updated values will not appear on the bus until they have been
> > > > > + * applied to the waveform at the beginning of the next period. We must
> > > > > + * write these registers and wait for them to be applied before
> > > > > + * considering the channel enabled.
> > > > > + * If the delay is under 1 us, sleep for at least 1 us anyway.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << pwm->hwpwm)) {
> > > > > + u64 delay;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + delay = div_u64(period, 1000u) ? : 1u;
> > > > > + writel_relaxed(1U, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD);
> > > > > + usleep_range(delay, delay * 2);
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > In some cases the delay could be prevented. e.g. when going from one
> > > > disabled state to another. If you don't want to complicate the driver
> > > > here, maybe point it out in a comment at least?
> > >
> > > Maybe this is my naivity talking, but I'd rather wait. Is there not the
> > > chance that we re-enter pwm_apply() before the update has actually gone
> > > through?
> >
> > My idea was to do something like that:
> >
> > int mchp_core_pwm_apply(....)
> > {
> > if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << pwm->hwpwm)) {
> > /*
> > * We're still waiting for an update, don't
> > * interfer until it's completed.
> > */
> > while (readl_relaxed(mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD)) {
> > cpu_relax();
> > if (waited_unreasonably_long())
> > return -ETIMEOUT;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > update_period_and_duty(...);
> > return 0;
> > }

So I was doing some fiddling, and the following works reasonably well:
if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << pwm->hwpwm)) {
u32 delay = MCHPCOREPWM_TIMEOUT_US;
u32 sync_upd;
int ret;

writel_relaxed(1u, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD);

ret = read_poll_timeout(readl, sync_upd, !sync_upd, delay/100, delay,
false, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD);
if (ret)
dev_dbg(mchp_core_pwm->chip.dev,
"timed out waiting for shadow register sync\n");
}

but...

> > This way you don't have to wait at all if the calls to pwm_apply() are
> > infrequent. Of course this only works this way, if you can determine if
> > there is a pending update.
>
> Ah I think I get what you mean now about waiting for completion &
> reading the bit. I don't know off the top of my head if that bit is
> readable. Docs say that they're R/W but I don't know if that means that
> an AXI read works or if the value is actually readable. I'll try
> something like this if I can.

...it does not implement what I think you suggested & comes with the
drawback of inconsistent behaviour depending on whether the timeout is
hit or not.

Instead, waiting in apply(), as you suggested, & get_state() looks to be the
better option, using the same sort of logic as above, say:
static int mchp_core_pwm_wait_for_sync_update(struct mchp_core_pwm_chip *mchp_core_pwm,
unsigned int channel)
{
int ret;

/*
* If a shadow register is used for this PWM channel, and iff there is
* a pending update to the waveform, we must wait for it to be applied
* before attempting to read its state, as reading the registers yields
* the currently implemented settings, the new ones are only readable
* once the current period has ended.
*
* Rather large delays are possible, in the seconds, so to avoid waiting
* around for **too** long - cap the wait at 100 ms.
*/
if (mchp_core_pwm->sync_update_mask & (1 << channel)) {
u32 delay = MCHPCOREPWM_TIMEOUT_US;
u32 sync_upd;

writel_relaxed(1u, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD);

ret = read_poll_timeout(readl, sync_upd, !sync_upd, delay/100, delay,
false, mchp_core_pwm->base + MCHPCOREPWM_SYNC_UPD);
if (ret)
return -ETIMEDOUT;
}

return 0;
}

I think that strikes a good balance? We return quickly & don't blocker
the caller, but simultaneously try to prevent them from either trying to
apply new settings or get the current settings until the last request
has gone though?

get_state() returns void though, is it valid behaviour to wait for the
timeout there?
I had a check in the core code and found some places where the call in
looks like:
struct pwm_state s1, s2;
chip->ops->get_state(chip, pwm, &s1);
In this case, exiting early would leave us with a completely wrong
idead of the state, if it was to time out.

Either way, it seems like either way we would be misleading the caller
of get_state() - perhaps the way around that is to do the wait & then
just carry on with get_state()?
In that scenario, you'd get the new settings where possible and the old ones
otherwise.
Returning if the timeout is hit would give you the new settings where possible
& otherwise you'd get whatever was passed to get_state().
I'm not really sure which of those two situations would be preferred?

Thanks,
Conor.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-21 16:32    [W:0.156 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site